Comment: Chatbots that resurrect the dead: legal experts weigh in Published on: 2 March 2021 Writing for The Conversation, Professor Lilian Edwards and colleagues discuss digital reincarnation and an individual's right to data privacy after they die. , ; , , and , It was recently revealed that in 2017 Microsoft which, if built, would digitally resurrect the dead. Using AI and machine learning, the proposed chatbot would bring our digital persona back to life for our family and friends to talk to. When pressed on the technology, Microsoft representatives admitted that the chatbot was 鈥溾��, and that there were currently no plans to put it into production. Still, it appears that the technical tools and personal data are in place to make digital reincarnations possible. AI chatbots have already passed the 鈥溾��, which means they鈥檝e fooled other humans into thinking they鈥檙e human, too. Meanwhile, most people in the modern world now leave behind enough data to teach AI programmes about our conversational idiosyncrasies. Convincing digital doubles may be just around the corner. But there are currently no laws governing digital reincarnation. Your right to data privacy after your death is far from set in stone, and there is currently no way for you to opt out of being digitally resurrected. This legal ambiguity leaves room for private companies to make chatbots out of your data after you鈥檙e dead. Our has looked at the surprisingly complex legal question of what happens to your data after you die. At present, and in the absence of specific legislation, it鈥檚 unclear who might have the ultimate power to reboot your digital persona after your physical body has been put to rest. Be Right Back, an episode of the Black Mirror TV series, featured a woman addicted to a chatbot representation of her dead partner. would use your electronic messages to create a in your likeness after you pass away. Such a chatbot would use machine learning to respond to text messages just as you would have when you were alive. If you happen to leave behind rich voice data, that too could be used to create your vocal likeness 鈥� someone your relatives could speak with, through a phone or a humanoid robot. Microsoft isn鈥檛 the only company to have shown an interest in digital resurrection. The AI company has built an AI-enabled chatbot which harvests information 鈥� including geolocation, motion, activity, photos, and Facebook data 鈥� which lets users create an avatar of themselves to live on after they die. It may be only a matter of time until families have the choice to reanimate dead relatives using AI technologies such as Eternime鈥檚. Read more: If chatbots and holograms from beyond the grave are set to become commonplace, we鈥檒l need to draw up new laws to govern them. After all, it looks like a violation of the right to privacy to digitally resurrect someone whose body lies beneath a tombstone reading 鈥渞est in peace鈥�. Bodies in binary National laws are inconsistent on how your data is used after your death. In the EU, the on data privacy only protects the rights of the living. That leaves to decide how to protect the data of the dead. Some, such as , have legislated on postmortem data. The UK鈥檚 have not. To further complicate matters, our data is mostly controlled by private online platforms such as Facebook and Google. This control is based on the terms of service that we sign up to when we create profiles on these platforms. Those terms fiercely protect the privacy of the dead. For example, in 2005, to provide email account login details for the surviving family of a US marine killed in Iraq. The company argued that their terms of service were designed to protect the marine鈥檚 privacy. A judge eventually the company to provide the family with a CD containing copies of the emails, setting a legal precedent in the process. Read more: A few initiatives, such as and , have attempted to address the postmortem data issue. They allow living users to make some on what happens to their data assets after they die, helping to avoid ugly court battles over dead people鈥檚 data in the future. But these measures are no substitute for laws. One route to better postmortem data legislation is to follow the example of . The UK鈥檚 鈥渙pt out鈥� is particularly relevant, as it treats the organs of the dead as donated unless that person specified otherwise when they were alive. The same opt out scheme could be applied to postmortem data. This model could help us respect the privacy of the dead and the wishes of their heirs, all while considering the that could arise from : that data donors just as organ donors do. In the future, private companies may offer family members an agonising choice: abandon your loved one to death, or instead pay to have them digitally revived. Microsoft鈥檚 chatbot may at present be too disturbing to countenance, but it鈥檚 an example of what鈥檚 to come. It鈥檚 time , Senior Lecturer in Media/Privacy Law, ; , Professor of Law, Innovation & Society, 缅北禁地 Law School, , and , Research fellow, This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the . Share: Latest News 缅北禁地 expert highlights climate crisis in a new film A leading 缅北禁地 climate scientist is featured in a new film about how the climate and nature breakdown will affect the UK. published on: 14 April 2026 Neolithic tombs reveal ancient kinship ties Male individuals buried in Neolithic chambered tombs in northern Scotland were often related to each other through the paternal line and some were interred in the same or nearby tombs, research shows. published on: 14 April 2026 We are our Memories New exhibition by Fine Art graduate Trish Hudson-Moses, 22 April 鈥� 4 May 2026 published on: 10 April 2026 Facts and figures
![缅北禁地 logo](/gomobileassets/img/logo.svg" "缅北禁地"){kind=logo}